Entitlements and taxes

Talk radio 3/23/10: When President Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28% those filthy rich people President Obama has such an animus for managed to put 21,000,000 unemployed people to work and revenues to the government doubled. Capital and employment go together - take it away from the free market and unemployment goes up.

President Kennedy did the same thing when he found that taxes had encroached to a very high level when he became President. He lowered the highest tax rate from 91% to a rate significantly lower and for lowest incomes from 20 to 14%. In each case unemployment went down and revenues to the government went up. It happened again when President Clinton adopted New Gingrich's Contract With America plan in 1994. President Bush's plan of cross-the-board lower taxes in 2003 brought about 46 months of economic growth and only slowed when the oil producing countries we placed our dependence on, instead of tapping our own vast natural resources, declared economic war on us in 2008. In spite of gradually driving the price of their oil up to $147 a barrel and putting a strain on every family budget and every industry unemployment in November 2008 was 6.5% - considerably lower than it is now.

It's not necessary to be an Ivy League scholar to know what works to revive the economy. All that's necessary is to look back at what worked to get there. But for those who would force us into Socialism, the way to do it is to deliberately destroy the economy and create the perception that only the government can be relied on to satisfy all our needs.

There's an old saying: "Money doesn't grow on trees." And neither does the money for the entitlements the Socialist politicians are so generously (?) bestowing on us - or are they just trying to create a dependency on them to feed their lust for power?

Entitlements can be like drugs. We glow in the elation of receiving them and then, like drugs, there are the after effects. With entitlements the after effects are that they have to be funded. And who is it that those funds come from? They have to be funded by the taxpayer that received the entitlement.

Some entitlements do make sense, such as unemployment insurance. But we can't be so heavily protected from every sling and arrow that come our way that we lose our incentive to go to work.

Bret Baier/President Obama interview

This is a letter I sent Fox News:

3/17/10

To:Fox News

From: Jack West
Fairfield, NJ

I thought Bret Baier did a masterful job under trying circumstances of interviewing the “Artful Dodger,” President Obama, this Saint Patrick’s Day afternoon. When Bret would try to get the President to get to the crux of the question he would answer with words which really meant, “Please let me continue with my filibuster.”

I was annoyed the first time I ever heard President Obama mention what he “inherited” regarding the economy and I get increasingly more agitated every time he says it - which is every time he gets on the air. This was no inheritance. It’s what these most radical left wingers, that managed to gain power, brought with them.

Who do we have to thank for leaving us wide open to have economic war being declared on us by the people we rely on to supply our oil needs? Who is it that stifles a more energetic effort for us go after our own vast resources of oil and natural gas? Until the countries that supply our oil gradually raised the price of their oil to $147 a barrel in 2008 this economy was humming along pretty good. The Bush tax cuts of 2003 brought about 46 months of economic growth and for the biggest part of that time the unemployment rate was under five percent. The economy would have continued to flourish the way it had been if we had been energy independent - and we could have been. The price of gas could have continued to be what it was in 1973 when it was 34 cents a gallon. There would not have been the stresses on family and industry budgets that came with the assault on our economy by our oil suppliers. One need only Google “Bakken oil formation” to see what kind of stores we have of oil and natural gas. Geologists indicate that in this area alone we sit on “the single largest oil deposit in the world.” We have deposits in many other parts of the country and offshore.

We are decades away from being able to be energy independent with “Green” sources. While that’s being developed we must rely on oil and natural gas. We can either send a trillion dollars every year and a half to foreign countries or we can make use of our own deposits and put our own people to work getting it. We could be competitors on the world market instead of prey. The Internet lists fifteen of our largest suppliers.
This information can be brought up by Googling, “Crude oil and total petroleum imports.”

Aside from some cursory comment by Glenn Beck, I don't remember any of the other political commentators talk about the effect the pricing of the imported oil was having on the economy in 2008. This was the primary cause of the breakdown of the economy.

Hillary the Nominee

7/19/09

Hillary Clinton will be selected by the Democrats to be their nominee for president in 2012 - this I believe. She will resign her position of Secretary of State at the proper time and seriously challenge Obama when the time is right. While most people probably think it's too early to be talking about this now, I am so strong in my belief that this will happen that I feel compelled to write about it now.

Barack Obama will have the economy in such a state of chaos by 2012 (especially if the Democrats continue to control congress after the 2010 elections) that his rock star, charasmatic personality will not be enough to carry the day in 2012 as it did in 2008. This is all he had going for him in 2008. Every time I would hear one of the pundits questioning whether Sarah Palin had enough experience to be VP, I would immediately think of how Obama had nothing in his resume' that would qualify him to be president except a good gift of gab - that is if he had a teleprompter. He commits almost as many gaffs as Joe Biden without it. Fortunate for him the "love is blind" press keeps a "mum is the word" silence about those fopars.

Congressman Chris Smith's address to members of the "House" in March of 2009 provides an interesting preview of what the Democrats will be offering in 2012:


Congressional 'Record
7//'*CON
iMtrt StatwclAmarfct PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111 CONGRESS. FIRST SESSION

Vol. 155 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009 No. 54
House of Representatives

"In Awe" of a Eugenicist?

HON. CHRIS SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

Excerpts of remarks on the House floor

Mr. Speaker, last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, presented bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people-a very nice gesture—and then went on to Houston, Texas, to receive the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.

In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was "in awe"—I repeat, "in awe"~of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. To our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In "awe" of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, "Eugenics...is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems." And who also said in 1922, "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Later, in 1939, Sanger wrote, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities." She wrote, "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she goes on, "and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's "life and leadership" was "one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race." Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes. But not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.

To me, and to many, including my distinguished colleague in the well, the juxtaposition of last week's two very public events in Mexico City and in Houston bring into sharp focus two huge and irreconcilable world views.

On the one hand, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe has for five centuries brought a message of hope, faith, peace, reconciliation and protection for the weakest, most vulnerable among us. On the other hand, each year, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood kills approximately 300,000 unborn baby girls and boys in their abortion clinics scattered throughout the United States.

Worldwide, the loss of innocent human life at the hands of Planned Parenthood is in the millions. Planned Parenthood even supports the hideous brain-sucking method of abortion called partial birth abortion.

On a visit to the Basilica in Mexico City in 1999, Pope John Paul II publicly entrusted protection of all at-risk human life, including especially unborn children and their mothers, to Our Lady of Guadalupe because the miracle she wrought 500 years ago resulted in an end to the barbaric practice of human sacrifice to a serpent god that claimed anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 victims a year.

Indeed, the miraculous story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, known so well especially in Latin America, but really around the world, has been extraordinarily compelling and inspirational for centuries.

In 1531, the Blessed Mother appeared to Juan Diego, a native American at Tepeyac, near Mexico City, and asked that a church be built on the site of the apparition. The Catholic bishop was skeptical and asked for a sign. At the behest of the Blessed Mother, and despite the fact it was winter, Juan Diego gathered roses from the site into his tilma for presentation to the Bishop.
When Juan Diego met with Bishop Juan de Zumarraga with the roses tucked under his apron, a miraculous image suddenly appeared on the cloth. The Bishop was stunned, and he believed. The image of the Blessed Mother wasn't painted. There are no brush strokes. To this day, the image defies all scientific explanation as to its origin.

Within a few years of the miracle, more than 9 million Aztecs converted to Christianity and a strong devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe began that continues to this day. Each year, some 18 million to 20 million pilgrims visit the miraculous image in Mexico City.

Last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the shrine. On Friday, she paid homage to Planned Parenthood and to Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a self-described pro-abortionist eugenist and a racist who considered charity care for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, especially pregnant women, to be "cruel."

In her book, "The Pivot of Civilization," Margaret Sanger devoted an entire chapter that she entitled: 'The Cruelty of Charity," to her inhumane case for not helping-and I repeat that-not helping poor pregnant women with prenatal and maternal care.

Sanger said in the book—and I read her book—"We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

In chapter 5-again, chapter 5 is called: "The Cruelty of Charity"~she writes, "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease." Sanger writes, "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and diminish the spread of misery and destruction and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." That's Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

She continues, "My criticism therefore is not directed at the failure of philanthropy but rather at its success." Sanger goes on to say, "There's a special type of philanthropy or benevolence now widely advertised and advocated both as a Federal program and as worthy of private endowment, which strikes me," that is to say Sanger, "as being more insidiously injurious than any other. This concerns itself directly with the function of maternity and aims to supply gratis medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers.

"Such women are to be visited by nurses and receive instruction in the hygiene of pregnancy, to be guided in making arrangements for confinement, to be invited to come to the doctors' clinics for examination and supervision. They are, we are informed, to receive adequate care during pregnancy, at confinement, and for 1 month afterwards. Thus, are mothers and babies to be saved, childbearing is to be made safe."

Construing to demean the generosity of pregnancy care centers, Margaret Sanger goes on to say, "The work of the maternity centers in the various American cities, which they have already been established and in which they are supported by private contributions and endowment, it is hardly necessary to point out is carried out among the poor and the most docile section of the city, among mothers least able, through poverty and ignorance, to afford the care and attention necessary for successful maternity.

"The effect of maternity endowments of maternity centers supported by private philanthropy would have perhaps already have had exactly the most dysgenic tendency. The new government program would facilitate the function of maternity among the very classes in which the absolute necessity is to discourage it.

"Such benevolence," she goes on to say, "is not merely superficial and nearsighted." Sanger continues, "It conceals a stupid cruelty. Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such programs would inevitably hasten, we may question its value even to the normal though unfortunate mother.

Sanger concludes, "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern benevolence is that it encourages"~and I say this again~"the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." Such audacity, such an inhumane view of human life.

Mr. Speaker, in her speech at the Planned Parenthood gala accepting the Margaret Sanger award-and I have many other quotes from Sanger that I will put into the Record, and I invite Members and the American people to look at those quotes, and there is so much more.
But in her speech last Friday, Secretary Clinton said she admired Sanger for her vision, was in "awe of her", and that Margaret Sanger's work here and in the United States and certainly across the globe is not done.

Translated, "not done" means more abortions here in the United States, in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the world. Planned Parenthood's mission statement, documents, and work in the field make it absolutely clear that they seek a global unfettered right to commit violence against unborn children at all stages of development. Planned Parenthood seeks integration of all health care with abortion, with no conscience rights whatsoever for medical practitioners, no parental consent or notification whatsoever for minors. And all of this paid for by the United States taxpayer.

Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Is our Secretary of State unaware of Margaret Sanger's inhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on Margaret Sanger's cruel and reckless disregard for poor, pregnant women? Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the Sanger award.

More importantly, Congress and the White House must at long last take a long, hard, second look at the multimillion, almost billion, dollar corporation called Planned Parenthood - Child Abuse Incorporated.

Let's be honest, Mr. Speaker. Abortion is violence against children. It dismembers and chemically poisons a child to death. It hurts women physically, psychologically, and spiritually. There is nothing whatsoever compassionate, benevolent, ennobling, benign, or empowering about abortion. It is a violation of a child's fundamental human rights.

Rather than partnering with Planned Parenthood and like-minded NGOs to promote abortion worldwide with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, the United States should affirm the inherent value, dignity, worth of both victims of abortion, mother and child. We need to promote nonviolent, life-affirming solutions to women both here as well as abroad. Women deserve better than abortion. We should always and in every way affirm the precious lives of both. And on that score, sadly, Margaret Sanger and far too many others would disagree.

I strongly urge my colleagues to take that second look at Planned Parenthood. It is time to respect the value and the dignity of all human life.

Bulls and Bears

11/22/08 10:48 PM

I found it somewhat tragically amusing to watch the alleged experts on the economy on the Saturday morning (11/22) program Bulls and Bears as they all gave their opinion on how we can revive the economy. It’s like watching a bunch of people walking through a forest asking, “Where are the trees?” Before a solution can ever be found to a problem the first thing that has to be recognized is how the problem developed.

Before the oil producing countries started their extortionist program of raising the price of crude oil out of sight, the economy was cruising along very well. It wasn’t going to be long before every household was going to find their budgets strained that would eventually translate into people’s inability to keep up with their bills and mortgage payments. Trucking and airline industries were to see the cost of fuel more than double putting more of a strain on the consumer.

No one should need a PHD in economics to know that a country is only as well off as what it can produce. I’ll take the “street smart” guy over the PHD any time. Playing checkers with the available cash, as is being advocated by the participants on the Bulls and Bears program, is nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors. When my father was out of work after his business of research and development of electronics failed in 1929, he used his skill at glass blowing to make neon signs. Using his bike, he pedaled from store to store getting orders where he could so he could put food on the table for his family.

The economy is now in a train wreck. It takes time to clear a train wreck before the trains can run on time again. This won’t be easy considering the fact that the electorate has put the wrong people in charge of fixing this economy. We’ve got to get into production the development of our natural resources. We can be ninety percent independent if we bring up our own sources of crude oil. Oil producing countries would be competing with one another to provide this country with the other ten percent. This country has the knowledge of how to mine for coal in an environmentally friendly way. If the environmentalists in this country want to do the world a favor they should have us mining for coal here instead of leaving it to third world countries who do not take the pains we take. Along with tapping our own sources of crude oil and a more aggressive mining of coal we should get refineries and nuclear plants built and do everything we can do to develop renewable sources of energy.

Enamored of a glib talking, charismatic young Hollywood starlike personality and with the help of an irresponsible media the electorate has given us a president that does not believe in any of the things I just mentioned. The argument that it would take X amount of years to be effective should be a non-starter if we’re concerned about what our legacy would be for future generations. And a more immediate effect of this developing of our own natural resources would be to be putting people to work and a general restoring of everyone’s confidence that the economy is on its way to recovery.

Obama's Experience

11/14/08

To: Fox News

From: Jack West
Fairfield, NJ

Will someone please tell Alan Colmes that Barack Obama did not win the election because of his experience?

A Republican Governor was a guest on the Hannity and Colmes show Thursday night
(11/13) and during the conversation between him and Alan Colmes he mentioned that Obama had absolutely no executive experience. He answered the governor saying “Obama was elected,” probably implying that enough people did think Obama had enough experience to be president. But that’s not what got him elected.

The Obama camp ran one of the most energetic campaigns in history with a very personable, charismatic candidate with a great gift of gab. He mesmerized so many people to the tune of not caring that he had no experience to be president or commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces. Most blacks voted for him simply because of his African/American roots. Most women voted for him because of his pro abortion beliefs. I said it before and I’ll say it again. Obama would make a great MC at an entertainment event but he’s not ready to be president. I believe a lot of people are going to be very disillusioned and regretful about what lies ahead.

In contrast to the Democrats, the Republicans ran the dullest campaign until about three weeks before the election. Their campaign came to life when Sarah Palin came on the scene. If it wasn’t for her, the expression I heard, “Formula for insomnia” surely could have applied.

When I heard the Republican Governor on 11/13 talking about Obama’s lack of experience I smacked my hands together and said, “Yes! I’m finally hearing it.” Unfortunately too late. I was crying for people to make this an issue during the campaign. While the talk show supporters were in a state of paralysis talking about Bill Ayers, the issue that people were really concerned about was the economy. We could have won the battle over who was responsible for the economy meltdown and the home mortgage crisis. The videos of the Congressional hearings were right on youtube on the Internet for everyone to see. Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and other liberals were saying there was nothing wrong as Republican Congressmen were exhorting Congress to take action to avoid impending trouble in the housing market. Every time I would hear the comment, “The failed policies of the Bush Administration” I would be crying for the Republicans to meet them head on. Instead of “throwing Bush under the bus” they should have been mentioning why the Democrats caused the energy crisis. This was the root cause of the economy meltdown. The more strain on everyone’s pocketbook and businesses had to finally translate into people falling behind on their mortgage payments. If we could have been tapping our own sources of gas and oil and building nuclear plants while we worked to bring about renewable sources of energy the oil producing countries would never have raised their prices out of sight. They would have been competing for our markets.

Wimpy Campaign

Saturday 10/11/08

To: The Fox News Staff

From: Jack West
Fairfield, NJ

When is McCain going to take off the kid gloves and wage a campaign that makes sense! He’s waging the wimpiest campaign of any that I’ve ever seen. I remember the campaigns of Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan; all of whom I had a lot of admiration for. They knew how to make things a contest.

The big issue today is the economy. McCain can win that fight. Nothing resonated more with me than when I watched reruns on Fox News of Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and other liberals raising a hullabaloo when President Bush, John McCain and other supporters of their positions were saying that something has to be done about Fannie May and Freddie Mac and that something has to be done about their reckless behavior of providing risky loans. Nothing would be more effective than for McCain himself making the case that it was these Democrats that have been responsible for the economic crisis we’re in now. Obama is very quick to blame the Bush administration for the debacle. Why doesn’t McCain fight back. He should go right at Obama - and with enough passion to make an impact. He should talk about the intimidation tactics of ACORN and the harassing tactics they used against bankers, actually demonstrating in front of their homes to get them to give loans to people who were a high risk to pay off those loans. These are the people the liberals championed and continue to support and they‘re the ones at fault.

Unless McCain can come up with unrepentant statements by Bill Ayers closer to when he waged his campaign for the presidency he should drop the subject. Things that happened decades ago have little impact on people. It’s only giving the impression that he’s trying to distract from the issue that people are most interested in. Not to fight back on this issue is almost a capitulation that it was the Bush Administration’s fault.

There are bigger things Obama should be called to task for than Bill Ayers and it’s what’s going on right now with ACORN. Another thing that should be looked into is what Obama was doing when he visited his terrorist cousin in Kenya during his term as United States Senator.

We also do not need a Commander-in-Chief that goes around the world telling other nations what a bad country we have been. I have an e-mail that was forwarded to me with the picture of Obama standing with his hands folded in front of him while Hillary Clinton and the Governor of New Mexico are standing with the proper posture while making the Pledge of Allegiance. Is his allegiance to this country or is it somewhere else?

The most opportune time for McCain to present these arguments is when he’s involved in the kind of format he was involved in yesterday - Friday 10/10 - not debates moderated by Tom Brokaw. I didn’t have high hopes for that debate when I heard that Brokaw was going to select about fifteen questions from a pile that were to be sent in by numerous viewers. That was tantamount to having Tom Brokaw make up the questions. If this wasn’t a serious matter I could have doubled over with laughter when I heard the last question. I could fill an encyclopedia with what I don’t know. And it’s exactly there where I’d look for my answers.

JW


On another matter and a regard of the consequence of an Obama victory, John Reidell writes this in his website (fromoneamerican.com): “If this law is enacted, and embryonic stem cell research and the like are further promoted as a result of this coming election, eroding further our moral life as a nation, it is possible history will record that calamity followed in the wake of the election that the nation voted in its own chastisement.”

He’s talking about Senate bill S 2020 - “A bill to prohibit the government from protecting the unborn from abortion.”

Obama Campaign Issue

Thursday 11/6/08

Obama Campaign Issue

Obama made a campaign issue about the national debt going up six trillion dollars under President Bush’s watch. In case he forgot and thought other people did, Muslim terrorists declared war on us and we went after them. That was the price of the war that has kept us safe at home under Bush’s watch. And for the sake of those who don’t know, Muslim terrorists have been waging war, in different degrees of intensity, against everything that is not Muslim from the time of Mohammed in the seventh century. They’ve been waging war against the United States for at least 40 years. We finally got the wakeup call on 9/11 and went after them. President Bush kept them pretty busy on their own turf.

I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t want me to be president because I would go one further. Just like you hold the ringleader of a trouble making gang responsible to keep his people in line, I would do that with the terrorists. I would appoint the nation that is most outspoken - in this case Iran - about wanting to destroy us, to be our guardian. I would put them on notice that if we are hit with a surprise attack anywhere in the world we will strike one of their cities - preferably Teheran. I might be kind enough to give them 48 hours to evacuate the city to show that we are not the barbarians they are that murder innocent citizens.

One last thing I would like to say about President Bush is the good-humored way he handled unfair criticism. Never did he respond in kind to the way some of his critics made remarks about him.